Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns text, creates a temporary PDF on api.almmity.com with an unguessable one-hour link that is then deleted, does not send the letter, and is callable without an API key. This covers creation, access, lifetime, and permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, source calculation, output format, file behavior, scope limitation, and API key exemption. Every sentence adds value with no repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, low schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers behavior well but leaves significant gaps around parameter semantics and how to structure the invoices or debtor/creditor objects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 30%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the 10 parameters (e.g., invoices structure, debtor/creditor fields, iban, place) beyond a vague reference to using the same calculation as calculate_late_interest.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (draft), resource (Polish pre-court payment demand / wezwanie do zapłaty), and ties it to a sibling tool (calculate_late_interest). It clearly distinguishes this tool from others by specifying the output (text) and that it does not send the letter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implicitly directs the agent to use calculate_late_interest for the underlying calculation and explicitly notes that it does not send the letter. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-use conditions or name alternative tools for drafting demands.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.